What do you consider the "gay lifestyle" to be?

[flameburns623]

This does not say that it is a worse sin when gay people are unchaste than it is when straight people are unchaste. It says nothing of the sort.

NO ONE, (I repeat) NO ONE said that homosexual sexual activity is ‘worse’ than heterosexual sexual activity. We explicitly said the opposite.

We indicated that homosexuali sin is differentiated from heterosexual sin in Catholic moral theology by the fact that homosexuality is objectively disordered. This differentiates homosexuality from heterosexual sin, not in terms of gravity or consequences but in the character of the sin.

You asked for a reference. I waded through the muck and dredged one out for you. There are others, if you’re interested, including some in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I don’t enjoy conversations like this. Please carry one without me.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Unchaste sexual behavior is wrong - whether homosexual or heterosexual. If it is so important to divide out sexual attraction from sexual behavior, why is it only done on the homosexual side? I don’t think there is any confusion among Catholics that unchaste sexual behavior is against Church teaching. If there is, maybe we should start calling unchaste heterosexuals some new term and chaste heterosexuals something else.

The creation of a new category of people called “SSA” people seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to create divisions where there are none. It seems that some are suggesting we should have three categories of people the “normals” (all heterosexuals regardless of their chastity), the “SSA” (the “good” homosexuals, who are disordered but not necessarily damned) and the “gays” (the bad homosexuals). Why not just admit that all people can be chaste or unchaste and leave it at that? While we are at it, why not admit that unchaste homosexuals are no more or less evil than unchaste heterosexuals?

Divisions are usually made so the divider can (surprise!) put him or herself into the “best” category. I don’t see any support for creating those kinds of divisive categories here. Or do you think that homosexual sins are somehow categorically worse than heterosexual sins? If you do, why?

I see the divisions based on vocations which are akin to Castes, but where some have mobility:

First Class Catholics: Monks, Nuns, Deacons, Priest, Bishop, and all the iterations thereof).

Second Class Catholics: Marrieds, straight celibate singles (they can choose to get married or promote to First Class status).

Third Class Christians: Chaste homosexuals (no choices whatsoever).

 

[LCMS_No_More]

NO ONE, (I repeat) NO ONE said that homosexual sexual activity is ‘worse’ than heterosexual sexual activity. We explicitly said the opposite.

Oh, believe me, it HAS been said, right here, on CAF. If the search function were working, I might be able to find something.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This does not say that it is a worse sin when gay people are unchaste than it is when straight people are unchaste. It says nothing of the sort.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."142

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

The reality is that most priests, in confession, treat homosexual practices like other violations of chastity, if there’s evidence that the penitent is trying to change and does repudiate the activity. He would not necessarily impose a greater penance than for other sexual sins.

But also understand that to be casual and indiscriminate about whether homosexual acts are merely an expression of self or harmless diversions, is completely out of character with Catholic moral theology. Thus, despite what kjn_23 says, it is important for the congregation to be aware of what a person means when they claim, in a Catholic setting, “I’m gay” or “I’m proud to be gay” – present tense and ambiguous adjective.

It is a term which has a highly charged meaning outside of a Catholic church and it cannot be assumed at all that the person is just gay in personality, self-identity, but thoroughly intends to be chaste & seeks the Catholic sacraments to help in that effort. It is even more important in contemporary life to make such distinctions, because there is so much effort in the mainstream media and in secular politics to blur the lines and engage in the same assumptions, premises, and permissions inside the church as outside.

Different world view. Very different. The Church is in the world, but not of it.

 

[PetersKeys]

For some reason, the above thinking is repeated so often on this message board (by a few people). It seems to me that any person with any sexuality could read that (slowly, maybe?) and realize that it makes no sense. No person is defined entirely by their “urges”, and no person is defined entirely by their sexuality. An important note here: “sexuality” and “urges” are not the same thing, they are not interchangeable terms. That being said, this idea that celibacy somehow makes a homosexual person no longer homosexual, or that a celibate homosexual need not make their sexuality “known” is absolutely ludicrous. I have a homosexual orientation. My sexuality, just the same as every other person’s sexuality, is not simply a collection of “urges”. Denying “urges” doesn’t make a sexuality go away. Are celibate, single heterosexuals not really “heterosexuals” because they are celibate? Are you a celibate homosexual person? If not, maybe you aren’t really in a position to tell those who are what their sexuality should or shouldn’t be. I happen to be a celibate homosexual person. I am not ashamed of that fact, nor should I be. My celibacy does not change my sexuality or make it disappear. In fact, my celibacy allows me to live out my sexuality for God alone.

I would love to know what it is about celibacy that makes a homosexual person “not really a homosexual”, like you say.

Peace,
Kolbe

no, you are simply a celibate suffering from a trial of sexual confusion and unnatural urges.

defining yourself as a homosexual would be the same thing as an adulteress defining themselves as a fornicator. In early time ‘homosexual’ was not used, but rather sodomite or pervert…Do you want that title?

And denying urges… What do you think the saints did? They denied their urges for the sake of Chastity and for God. Yes they felt temptation. But they denied them to live a life of Chastity. Some did very heavy penances for it and forms of mortification.

Denying sin is a good thing. Sometimes we fall. But we must work against it.

 

[Kolbe300]

no, you are simply a celibate suffering from a trial of sexual confusion and unnatural urges.

Sexual confusion? PeterKeys, I think you might be the one confused about my sexuality. I’m certainly not confused about it. In fact, it’s about as clear to me as anything can be. My attractions, while they may seem unnatural to you, are as natural to me as being left-handed. They always have been. I have to fight against the urges that come naturally to me (ordered, disordered, it doesn’t matter which), just like you fight the ones that come naturally to you (ordered, disordered, it doesn’t matter which).

defining yourself as a homosexual would be the same thing as an adulteress defining themselves as a fornicator.

I am not defined by my sexuality. However, my sexuality happens to be oriented towards those of the same sex. AKA - homosexual. Since celibacy is not a sexual orientation, and if I can’t define my sexuality as homosexual, where does that leave me? And if a homosexual orientation isn’t sinful, as the Church teaches, why wouldn’t I be honest about it?

You made a comparison to an adulteress, which I’ll thank you for because I actually got a really good laugh from that. Let me point out the difference: It is impossible to be a fornicator without first fornicating. It is impossible to be an adulteress without first committing adultery. It is absolutely possible to be a homosexual person without commiting a single homosexual act. That fact is NO different than a heterosexual person being heterosexual without ever having sex of any kind at any time. The definition of our sexual ORIENTATION is not contingent upon our sexual behavior.

In early time ‘homosexual’ was not used, but rather sodomite or pervert…Do you want that title?

I don’t want that title, would you? Something tells me a lot of Christians would love me to have it though. The ones who aren’t already giving it to me, of course.

And denying urges… What do you think the saints did? They denied their urges for the sake of Chastity and for God.

Yes they are the perfect examples. I wasn’t arguing against that fact. The point I made is that “urges” and “sexuality” are not the same thing. When we deny our urges, our sexuality does not disappear. My celibacy, to the chagrin of so many, does not make me straight.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am not defined by my sexuality.

Darn right. None of us are, including heterosexuals. However, the secular propaganda rotates between the following two rhetorical statements, which conveniently change as opportune:

(1) Everyone is defined by their sexuality; those who claim not to be just don’t know it yet.

or

(2) Only gays (being, of course, so “special”) are actually defined by their sexuality; the rest of us have such a watered-down sexuality (being not as “colorful”) that our sexuality is not even prominent in our lives, let alone determinant in our identities.

Translation: gay sexuality uniquely defines gays, but nobody else.

Ohhhh. Kaayyyyyy.

Neither (1) or (2), of course, are consistent with Catholic philosophy and theology. Our identity is son or daughter of God, and brother or sister to Jesus and to each other. Over. Out.

 

[TMC]

NO ONE, (I repeat) NO ONE said that homosexual sexual activity is ‘worse’ than heterosexual sexual activity. We explicitly said the opposite.

We indicated that homosexuali sin is differentiated from heterosexual sin in Catholic moral theology by the fact that homosexuality is objectively disordered. This differentiates homosexuality from heterosexual sin, not in terms of gravity or consequences but in the character of the sin.

You asked for a reference. I waded through the muck and dredged one out for you. There are others, if you’re interested, including some in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I don’t enjoy conversations like this. Please carry one without me.

If you are saying that homosexual sins are not worse than heterosexual sins, then exactly how are they “differentiated”? Why do we need to create a whole new category of Catholics to describe Catholics that are gay?

 

[TMC]

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

The reality is that most priests, in confession, treat homosexual practices like other violations of chastity, if there’s evidence that the penitent is trying to change and does repudiate the activity. He would not necessarily impose a greater penance than for other sexual sins.

But also understand that to be casual and indiscriminate about whether homosexual acts are merely an expression of self or harmless diversions, is completely out of character with Catholic moral theology. Thus, despite what kjn_23 says, it is important for the congregation to be aware of what a person means when they claim, in a Catholic setting, “I’m gay” or “I’m proud to be gay” – present tense and ambiguous adjective.

It is a term which has a highly charged meaning outside of a Catholic church and it cannot be assumed at all that the person is just gay in personality, self-identity, but thoroughly intends to be chaste & seeks the Catholic sacraments to help in that effort. It is even more important in contemporary life to make such distinctions, because there is so much effort in the mainstream media and in secular politics to blur the lines and engage in the same assumptions, premises, and permissions inside the church as outside.

Different world view. Very different. The Church is in the world, but not of it.

The quote you provide from the Catechism says that homosexual acts are in the same category of sin as masturbation, fornication and pornography. Doesn’t that confirm that homosexual sins against chastity are not categorically different than heterosexual sins against chastity?

 

[PetersKeys]

Originally Posted by Kolbe300 View Post
I am not defined by my sexuality.

That was my original argument. You can;t really define yourself as a homosexual if your celibate. You may have unnatural urges(Romans chapter 1), but being a homosexual means living the homosexual lifestyle. Otherwise your just playing a semantics game. Especially considering the word homosexual is a new word with its own political correctness. The original word is sodomite or pervert.

There is no identity words for sinful lifestyles.

If your not defined by your sexuality the why do you call yourself a homosexual. You contradict yourself. There are plenty of people who have homosexual urges who are married and in normal heterosexual marriages.

As St. Paul tells us “leaving the natural function, they BURNED IN LUST towards one another”.

 

[Holly3278]

The gay lifestyle often includes:

• Homosexual sexual relations
• Homosexual “marriage”
• Gay pride parades
• And much more…

 

[estesbob]

\
The creation of a new category of people called “SSA” people seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to create divisions where there are none. It seems that some are suggesting we should have three categories of people the “normals” (all heterosexuals regardless of their chastity), the “SSA” (the “good” homosexuals, who are disordered but not necessarily damned) and the “gays” (the bad homosexuals). Why not just admit that all people can be chaste or unchaste and leave it at that? While we are at it, why not admit that unchaste homosexuals are no more or less evil than unchaste heterosexuals?

There wasn’t a creation of a new category of people-same-sex attraction is a description of people who are attracted to members of the same-sex. It is important that they be differentiated from people who engage in homosexual behavior because ,although the former is disordered ,the latter is a grievous sin. When having a discussion about the morality of homosexual behavior it is very important we distinguish between the two. As we have seen throwing out terms like gay and homosexual when discussing people who do not engage in homosexual behavior leads to all sorts of unnecessary misunderstandings and conflict.

The church does not teach that unchaste homosexuals are more evil than unchaste heterosexuals. The difference is that heterosexual attraction is not disordered, same-sex attraction is. Same-sex attraction can never lead to anything good. Heterosexual attraction, when acted upon the way,God intended it to be, leads to the joy of being able to help God in the creation process and raise children to glorify and praise him.

 

[estesbob]

I see the divisions based on vocations which are akin to Castes, but where some have mobility:

First Class Catholics: Monks, Nuns, Deacons, Priest, Bishop, and all the iterations thereof).

Second Class Catholics: Marrieds, straight celibate singles (they can choose to get married or promote to First Class status).

Third Class Christians: Chaste homosexuals (no choices whatsoever).

You are making the erroneous assumption that we are defined by whether or not we engage in sex and if we do so with whom and in what manner do we do it.

The fact that I engage in heterosexual sex is far far down the list of attributes that I use to define myself.

 

[estesbob]

If you are saying that homosexual sins are not worse than heterosexual sins, then exactly how are they “differentiated”? Ohy do we need to create a whole new category of Catholics to describe Catholics that are gay?

Because homosexual behavior is a sin, same-sex attraction is not. Not a matter of whether one is Catholic or not. When having a discussion on theology it is important that both sides know what they’re talking about.

This is the first time I’ve ever run across somebody who believe the term same-sex attraction was derogatory toward somehow demeaning. The reason, by the way, that one is more likely to run across this term in CAF is that same-sex attraction is the way that the Catholic Church has chosen to define people with homosexual inclinations who are not acting on it. Sincebthis is a Catholic forum we are going to use terminology that is familiar the those who practice our faith.

 

[Kolbe300]

That was my original argument. You can;t really define yourself as a homosexual if your celibate.

Then how do I define my sexuality? Celibacy is not a sexuality. I can’t define my sexuality as heterosexual because my sexuality does not even remotely fit that definition. My sexuality does, however, fit the definition of homosexual. Sure, I could define it as same-sex-attracted, which works fine on this forum. As I’ve mentioned before, this forum is the ONLY place it works fine.

Otherwise your just playing a semantics game.

It isn’t semantics. It’s definition. A homosexual person is NOT, by definition, automatically one who engages in homosexual behavior. Again, it’s not semantics. Look the word up.

You may have unnatural urges(Romans chapter 1),

Because nobody ever answers this question, I’m hoping you will: Do you believe your sexuality is nothing more than “urges”? Is that what your sexuality is reduced to?

but being a homosexual means living the homosexual lifestyle.

No, that isn’t what being a homosexual automatically means. Does being a heterosexual automatically mean you engage in heterosexual acts? If not, then why the difference?

If your not defined by your sexuality the why do you call yourself a homosexual. You contradict yourself.

The only time I ever identify my sexuality is if it has to do with the topic of conversation. It would be tough to have a conversation on the subject if I couldn’t do that.

There are plenty of people who have homosexual urges who are married and in normal heterosexual marriages.

Of this there is no doubt. I would love to hear from someone with a homosexual orientation as to the normalcy of their heterosexual marriage. I would be willing to bet that it is a huge struggle. I choose not to get married because I simply could not enter that Sacrament knowing there is no physical attraction to the one I marry. That, to me, would be dishonest to myself and especially to the woman I would be marrying.

When having a discussion on theology it is important that both sides know what they’re talking about.

This is absolutely spot on. No matter what term is used (SSA, Homosexual, Gay), we simply must not assume anything until we are told otherwise. And we certainly shouldn’t always assume the worst.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[PetersKeys]

Then how do I define my sexuality? Celibacy is not a sexuality. I can’t define my sexuality as heterosexual because my sexuality does not even remotely fit that definition. My sexuality does, however, fit the definition of homosexual. Sure, I could define it as same-sex-attracted, which works fine on this forum. As I’ve mentioned before, this forum is the ONLY place it works fine.

as asexual.

It isn’t semantics. It’s definition. A homosexual person is NOT, by definition, automatically one who engages in homosexual behavior. Again, it’s not semantics. Look the word up.

“homosexual” is a new word in the dictionary. Why would you give yourself a label that is a connotation against God’s natural law?? Jesus says you can commit adultery in your heart by just lusting after a woman carnally.

Because nobody ever answers this question, I’m hoping you will: Do you believe your sexuality is nothing more than “urges”? Is that what your sexuality is reduced to?

pretty much. Sexual urges are related to libido.

No, that isn’t what being a homosexual automatically means. Does being a heterosexual automatically mean you engage in heterosexual acts? If not, then why the difference?

I don’t feel the need to define sexual urges towards whichever sex. There are natural urges, and there are unnatural ones.

The only time I ever identify my sexuality is if it has to do with the topic of conversation. It would be tough to have a conversation on the subject if I couldn’t do that.

I think same-sex attraction would be a much better term than “homosexual”. The term homosexual has a permanent connotation, meaning that there is no room for change. It is a fatalistic label.

A person who has urges for S&M for example wouldn’t label himself after that. Or a person with unnatural fetishes a “fetishist”. Or a person attracted to animals. They wouldn’t label themselves after these things because they know they would be shunned. The only reason you label yourself a homosexual is because the label isn’t shunned by society anymore. but with moral law this isn’t the case, because you can see that people with other types of unnatural sexual urges would not label themselves after those urges. All they would realize is that they have an unnatural attraction that they need to work on. But labeling oneself after it is the wrong idea and mindset.

Of this there is no doubt. I would love to hear from someone with a homosexual orientation as to the normalcy of their heterosexual marriage. I would be willing to bet that it is a huge struggle. I choose not to get married because I simply could not enter that Sacrament knowing there is no physical attraction to the one I marry. That, to me, would be dishonest to myself and especially to the woman I would be marrying.

ALL marriage is a struggle and sacrifice. Struggle is good because one gains merit from it.

 

[MarianD]

It isn’t semantics. It’s definition. A homosexual person is NOT, by definition, automatically one who engages in homosexual behavior. Again, it’s not semantics. Look the word up.

This forum is literally the only place where the word “homosexual” automatically implies a gay person who has gay sex and wants to get married. Nowhere else is this assumed, not even among people who identify as homosexuals and not even in the Catechism (which says “Homosexual persons are called to chastity” in paragraph 2359, which on this forum would somehow be an oxymoron).

 

[LCMS_No_More]

That was my original argument. You can;t really define yourself as a homosexual if your celibate. You may have unnatural urges(Romans chapter 1), but being a homosexual means living the homosexual lifestyle. Otherwise your just playing a semantics game. Especially considering the word homosexual is a new word with its own political correctness. The original word is sodomite or pervert.

There is no identity words for sinful lifestyles.

If your not defined by your sexuality the why do you call yourself a homosexual. You contradict yourself. There are plenty of people who have homosexual urges who are married and in normal heterosexual marriages.

As St. Paul tells us “leaving the natural function, they BURNED IN LUST towards one another”.

So, you’re saying that a normal person who is celibate isn’t heterosexual?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There wasn’t a creation of a new category of people-same-sex attraction is a description of people who are attracted to members of the same-sex. It is important that they be differentiated from people who engage in homosexual behavior because ,although the former is disordered ,the latter is a grievous sin. When having a discussion about the morality of homosexual behavior it is very important we distinguish between the two. As we have seen throwing out terms like gay and homosexual when discussing people who do not engage in homosexual behavior leads to all sorts of unnecessary misunderstandings and conflict.

The church does not teach that unchaste homosexuals are more evil than unchaste heterosexuals. The difference is that heterosexual attraction is not disordered, same-sex attraction is. Same-sex attraction can never lead to anything good.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

You’ve stated right here the exact reason I despise being CURSED with this loathsome condition. Because of it, I have to hide this dirty little secret because, if it got out, I’d be considered a pariah, a third class subject in the Kingdom, lower than the lowest. Because of it, I see no hope of a useful and meaningful vocation in the Church. Because of it, I see no hope of a happy life. You’re absolutely right, Bob, same-sex attraction can never lead to anything good.

Heterosexual attraction, when acted upon the way,God intended it to be, leads to the joy of being able to help God in the creation process and raise children to glorify and praise him.

Which is why heterosexual people are superior to people like me.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You are making the erroneous assumption that we are defined by whether or not we engage in sex and if we do so with whom and in what manner do we do it.

The fact that I engage in heterosexual sex is far far down the list of attributes that I use to define myself.

No, but the fact that you have greater freedom in how you live your vocation makes you more human than a person who has less freedom, like me. You can choose your vocation and your state of life. I cannot.

Yep…woohoo…non-sanctified loneliness forever (or, in prettified language, the perpetual, non-consecrated single “life”)…that’s what God has in store for me. Yay being all alone all the time! Woohoo!